The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 39...
... 39 actions.547 In Concord v. Ambrose,548 a federal district court in California held that information on the Customs Bureau's surveillance techniques were not subject to production under the FOIA.549 As another example, investigators from the Social Security Administration's and the Office of the Inspector General's Cooperative Disability Investigations program compile investigatory files that may include video surveillance of applicants for disability benefits, including Supplemental Security Income payments.550 Depending on the circumstances and applicable FOIA exemption, courts, in addition to the one in Concord, supra, have refused to order agencies to provide video surveillance records or related information.551 2.
From page 40...
... 40 personal privacy" unless the subject of the information consents in writing to the disclosure.562 Also, in Illinois, "information specifically prohibited from disclosure by federal or State law or rules and regulations implemented by federal or State law" may not be disclosed.563 New York and Wisconsin have similar exemptions.564 State public records disclosure laws may exempt records that pertain to security plans or infrastructure. In Florida, records, information, photographs, and audio and visual presentations that reveal a security system plan are confidential and exempt.565 It has been held that the public records statute applies to video recordings.566 In Baines v.
From page 41...
... 41 In KSTP-TV v. Metropolitan Council,581 the issue was how video data should be classified under the Data Practices Act.
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More information on Chapter Skim is available.